EXO Posted December 28, 2005 Posted December 28, 2005 Ive been reading some reviews and it looks like it's gonna be a great watch. Finally a good thriller. I'm just wondering if anyone here has seen it. http://www.munichmovie.com/splash.html
zeo-mare Posted December 28, 2005 Posted December 28, 2005 Hi have not seen it yet, but alot of Speilbergs movies like this are quite good, i am looking forward to seeing this one. chris
areaseven Posted December 28, 2005 Posted December 28, 2005 I gave up on Spielberg after watching A.I.: Artificial Intelligence, but perhaps I'll check Munich out.
EXO Posted December 28, 2005 Author Posted December 28, 2005 I gave up on Spielberg after watching A.I.: Artificial Intelligence, but perhaps I'll check Munich out. 355502[/snapback] I didn't like AI but it's ridiculous to give up on Spielgberg. All my favorite directors have films I don't like.
agr33 Posted December 28, 2005 Posted December 28, 2005 (edited) hello. i went to go see it this weekend and it is an exraordinary movie! this film is never on auto pilot as many movies are about these kinds of subjects. i was personally blown away by the level of back alley deals needed to find the men responsible for what happened at munich. also, it wonderfully and masterfully blurs the line between justice,rage and brute reciprocity. this film is a must watch!!!! Edited December 28, 2005 by agr33
EXO Posted December 28, 2005 Author Posted December 28, 2005 (edited) man... it's starting right now in my area, but damn people and their need for sleep... I'll try to see it tomorrow... Edited December 28, 2005 by >EXO<
myk Posted December 28, 2005 Posted December 28, 2005 I was hoping that some of you guys would see it first, then post a review about it. If the movie is indeed an impartial take on the mess that occurred in that time period then I'll give it a shot.
hirohawa Posted December 28, 2005 Posted December 28, 2005 I think it is one of his worst films. Over sentimental and alot of offensive scenes. This guy definitely has a problem with women and sex. Everyone is just such a great guy in thsi movie. Even the 11 men who organized the kidnapping at teh Olympics - see fundamntalist terrorists are nice guys that smile and make small talk. Last shot of the movie is in offensive, in poor taste and annoyingly predictable. Bana and Geoffrey Rush where great but they are always great. Some of the action scenes are incredible and very powerful - but overall this film feels very ordinary - I wouldn't even know if it was a spielberg film unless told. Also it is not getting great reviews http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/munich/ Munich is to other Espionage movies like Donnie Brasco is to Mob Films.
zeo-mare Posted December 28, 2005 Posted December 28, 2005 i had heard that the portrayal of the terrorists in this movie may offend people, since he wanted to place a human face on them, instead of the typical stereotypes of Arab portrayed in Hollywood. i understand his reasoning for it , at some point in real life these were just people living there lives they way they believed but in the end when all was said and done they were nothing more then cowardly murderers, and that is how they should be remembered. chris
myk Posted December 28, 2005 Posted December 28, 2005 (edited) Well, I was told that Spielberg was trying to "walk the line" between the two forces, not taking sides. I've never believed in neutrality or impartiality, so I'm going to have to see how this is handled. As for heroes and terrorists, they're the same thing. People who are offended by Spielberg's attempt to humanize terrorists are clueless, ignorant. One country's hero is another country's terrorist, and vice versa. It's amusing to see how one group of people can feel so righteous about their own group while demonishing another... Edited December 28, 2005 by myk
JsARCLIGHT Posted December 28, 2005 Posted December 28, 2005 I'll probably see this movie eventually but I have to say that the subject matter does not interest me in the least. Spielburg is walking a very narrow line with this movie and in all truth it has to turn out the way it does (portraying both sides as bad/good) because if it didn't then it would supposedly "show favoritism" to one side or the other in a very heated political area... The only problem is that the book this movie is supposedly based on (Vengence) is increadibly slanted and opinionated in not only it's position but many people claim it made up a good number of facts about the whole incident. (the book Vengence is based on only ONE man's side of the story with facts and items unable to be proven but are all denied by the Moussad and Israel) The only people that know the real truth are the Israeli operatives that where on the mission, all this new movie is and the book it is based on are speculation. Speculation that runs a terrible risk of ignighting new hate between the Israelis and the Palestinians... hence why he had to make it the way people say it is made. You just can't go and make a polarizing movie that might set off violence, no matter what sort of "artistic vision" you think you have... but at the same time to bend the truth to make the topic palatable to all sides is just as bad. The problem is that no one really knows what the truth is in this situaiton so Spielburg has taken it upon himself to "write history" for the world... and a lot of stupid people get their views and opinions from movies rather than facts. Hopefully this movie will be a catalyst for people to want to know what really happened in the wake of Munich rather than it becoming the accepted truth of what happened.
bsu legato Posted December 28, 2005 Posted December 28, 2005 No sign of it here in town. I probably won't get to see it until it's in wide release, some time in January.
Apollo Leader Posted December 28, 2005 Posted December 28, 2005 I believe one of the guys who had a major hand in writing the screenplay for Munich was the same screenplay writer for War of the Worlds that dropped in subtle commentary comparing our brave men and women in our armed forces that are in Iraq right now to the invading Martians. Now this same guy is trying to humanize these Islamo facists in this new movie. And Hollywood wonders why ticket sales have been dropping these last few years...
hirohawa Posted December 28, 2005 Posted December 28, 2005 I'm Iranian, born here but have been there a few times. When you are dealing with these fundamentalists, like Hezbollah - I got stopped there for having long hair - they are not just like you and me. They are not average people with universal desires - they are straight up twisted and wear malevolance with pride. This Fundamentalist ideology is based on oppression and innaccesabilty. They do not smile and make small talk with foreigners on balconies. And spies are cold and calculated, this cooking sensitive spy who questions morality and yearns for his family is completely phony and very TV movie of week. If you read about Mousad and Isreali military in general these guys are hard boiled operatives, especially if they make it to high ranking positions like Eric Bana did in this film.
Noyhauser Posted December 28, 2005 Posted December 28, 2005 I had a long reply ready to go, but I asked myself the question, what would it accomplish? I've got a LOT of points of disagreements with your post, Hiro though, and I'll leave it at that. I haven't seen the movie, (I'm going to) but I'm intersted, since I did my masters in group psychology and how it relates to terrorist groups (specifically Islamic ones). Interestingly enough some of my collegues said it was pretty good, and its portrail of terrorists was pretty good. Maybe one of the best since the Battle of Algeris. Although they noted that it had the glaring ommission of the Lillehammer assassination, where mossad got the wrong man. But oh well... I'm interested to see it.
Noyhauser Posted December 28, 2005 Posted December 28, 2005 Oh, and I didn't mean good as in good terrorists. I should have said accurate portrail. Which its decently accurate from what my friends say, and alot better than what has been offered before.
JsARCLIGHT Posted December 28, 2005 Posted December 28, 2005 Question for those who have seen the movie, or to those who go and see the movie: The actual killing of the Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics is reported to not be shown in the movie, and that the movie only deals with the Moussad operation after the event. For those who see the movie, do you feel any more sympathy for the Israelis or for the Palestinians when the focus of the entire movie seems to be about the Israeli revenge and not the incident that spawned the revenge? It seems to me in order to properly balance this movie Spielburg needed to cover both events, the Munich terrorist attack and the Moussad retribution strikes in equal ground in order to show "both sides of the coin". Just hinting at the terrorism or showing snippets of it then putting all the focus on the followup actions is like only covering the fielding of a baseball hit by a bat and not showing the actual pitch and hit. Then again what is the intent of this movie? Is the intent to showcase the brutality of the follup "revenge" strikes? Is it to show how terrorists and the agents pursuing them are "alike"? I have heard every reason under the rainbow for Spielburg's choices that supposedly exsist in this movie... but my question is how is the viewer supposed to react? What are you supposed to feel and for whom?
EXO Posted December 28, 2005 Author Posted December 28, 2005 As someone totally not familiar with the incedent, I'm just interested in it as far as a revenge movie. I know Spielberg tries to push that emotional stuff and maybe too preachy. I never go to the movies to find out more about some political agenda unless it's there to make the whole experience seem more real at the time I'm watching it. I hope it works out this time.
agr33 Posted December 28, 2005 Posted December 28, 2005 to answer your question, I think spielberg doen't want us to side with anyone. in my opinion i think that he was trying to convey an ongoing battle between two very brutal organization. the question you all should be asking yourselves is not where your simpathy's should lay, but rather; what if any,is the diffrence between both these organization. honestly, it seems that the only real diffrence is that one is a real great ally to the united states. am i wrong?
JsARCLIGHT Posted December 28, 2005 Posted December 28, 2005 My only point I wanted to make is that this topic is still a very, very sore subject for people and for Spielburg to make a movie about it now of all times, no matter how apolitical or "sideless" he is trying to make it, the movie is going to come off negative. Four Brothers is a revenge movie, Payback is a revenge movie, Unforgiven is a revenge movie... but they are all fake, made up. Munich is very real and rife with still festering politics. It's about horrible real world events, showing two hated and embattled groups at their worst and that is still an open wound to a lot of people. If this was just some run of the mill shootem' up revenge movie Spielburg would not be screening this for politicos, hiring members of the whitehouse international affairs staff to slick down ruffled feathers and trying to spin it like a top so people don't put a hit out on him. Personally I think this whole thing is just Spielburg trying to rub his thumb in someone's eye... who's eye it is I'm not sure.
JsARCLIGHT Posted December 28, 2005 Posted December 28, 2005 to answer your question, I think spielberg doen't want us to side with anyone. in my opinion i think that he was trying to convey an ongoing battle between two very brutal organization. the question you all should be asking yourselves is not where your simpathy's should lay, but rather; what if any,is the diffrence between both these organization. honestly, it seems that the only real diffrence is that one is a real great ally to the united states. am i wrong? 355678[/snapback] You are not wrong but at the same time you are not right. That is your opinion and many people will disagree with you. And just as that is your opinion this movie is Spielburg's opinion on this whole affair... there is no "truth" in this. The "true truth" is hidden in the files of the Moussad. The problem is that mass media like movies tend to sway the opinions of others who watch them even when all the facts are not in. Munich is propaganda... but propaganda for what is my question? It seems everyone who sees it gets something different out of it. I just want to know what Spielburg intended this movie to be... what was in his head when he made this movie and what was his intent to show us? What we actually see and take from the movie is up to our own interpretation of it but every artist has a goal in mind when he stretches his canvas... who gets that goal in the end is up to their own eyes and ears. But this subject at this time is what I question.
Noyhauser Posted December 29, 2005 Posted December 29, 2005 (edited) Question for those who have seen the movie, or to those who go and see the movie:The actual killing of the Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics is reported to not be shown in the movie, and that the movie only deals with the Moussad operation after the event. For those who see the movie, do you feel any more sympathy for the Israelis or for the Palestinians when the focus of the entire movie seems to be about the Israeli revenge and not the incident that spawned the revenge? It seems to me in order to properly balance this movie Spielburg needed to cover both events, the Munich terrorist attack and the Moussad retribution strikes in equal ground in order to show "both sides of the coin". Just hinting at the terrorism or showing snippets of it then putting all the focus on the followup actions is like only covering the fielding of a baseball hit by a bat and not showing the actual pitch and hit. Then again what is the intent of this movie? Is the intent to showcase the brutality of the follup "revenge" strikes? Is it to show how terrorists and the agents pursuing them are "alike"? I have heard every reason under the rainbow for Spielburg's choices that supposedly exsist in this movie... but my question is how is the viewer supposed to react? What are you supposed to feel and for whom? 355666[/snapback] I don't think its possible to ever put something like this into context. If you ask about what happened at munich then to contexualize, don't you need to bring up the six days war? and then before that 1948, or the Balfour Declaration, and it goes on. I think there is a point where you cut it off from, that strikes a balance between storytelling and realism. I've heard pretty even handed criticisms of it from both sides, which in my experience usually means its probably either horribly off, or somewhere in the comfortable middle. If he really wanted to disgrace the Israelis he would have included Lillehammer, thats for sure. So I assume its got an even bent to it. I think they introduce what happened at Munich as the central concept. Its pretty hard not to know what happened, and what some people did. So I don't think its skewed at all (from what I've heard and read). Edited December 29, 2005 by Noyhauser
EXO Posted December 29, 2005 Author Posted December 29, 2005 to answer your question, I think spielberg doen't want us to side with anyone. in my opinion i think that he was trying to convey an ongoing battle between two very brutal organization. the question you all should be asking yourselves is not where your simpathy's should lay, but rather; what if any,is the diffrence between both these organization. honestly, it seems that the only real diffrence is that one is a real great ally to the united states. am i wrong? 355678[/snapback] You are not wrong but at the same time you are not right. That is your opinion and many people will disagree with you. And just as that is your opinion this movie is Spielburg's opinion on this whole affair... there is no "truth" in this. The "true truth" is hidden in the files of the Moussad. The problem is that mass media like movies tend to sway the opinions of others who watch them even when all the facts are not in. Munich is propaganda... but propaganda for what is my question? It seems everyone who sees it gets something different out of it. I just want to know what Spielburg intended this movie to be... what was in his head when he made this movie and what was his intent to show us? What we actually see and take from the movie is up to our own interpretation of it but every artist has a goal in mind when he stretches his canvas... who gets that goal in the end is up to their own eyes and ears. But this subject at this time is what I question. 355683[/snapback] It sounds corny, because it is... just remember I didnt make it up. But I just read somewhere that the whole meaning or as you would call it "propaganda" is that beneath all the atrocities during and after the incident, there's a cry for peace. I paraphrase because I've read other reviews since, but that's Spielbergs take on the whole incident. I would disagree with that point of view but like I said before, I'm not familiar with the incident, the groups or anything. But it's just the kind of thing that messes a movie up for me. It's what I would call "pussy film making". I'm sure A1 would agree.
JsARCLIGHT Posted December 29, 2005 Posted December 29, 2005 But to simply have the catalyst of the revenge as a "known fact" does not give even footing to the presentation of the story. To speak in EXO terms (not trying to snarl you EXO, just using your analogy), the common mythos for a "revenge movie" is to show the act that causes the protagonist to seek revenge... and in many cases of revenge movies they show the whole act, dramatized, so the audience can see what the character seeking revenge saw and feel what that character felt. A fine point is the Clint Eastwood movie Unforgiven... he shows you the cowhand cut up the whore and the audience sees and knows what happened and they know what they felt when it happened, so later in the movie when they hear the supporting cast spreading tall tales and exaggerations of the incident and when the final revenge comes they feel just as the protagonist feels. Munich is a revenge story without the catalyst in my mind... with the catalyst it seems the dynamic of the movie drastically changes, which makes me think the movie is supposed to be showing us something other than simple revenge. I also think it is supposed to be showing us something other than simple "both sides are inhuman/human" moral as he could have chosen a much less politically charged topic to tell a more poiniant story of that respect. To clear a few things up I myself have several Jewish friends but am not Jewish myself. I hear them talk of the struggles, the hardships and the problems they and their families face in Israel. They are all currently lit on fire about this movie, condemning it as Spielburg villifying the Israelis... but I think he is trying to show us something else but I don't know what. The other problem is that I really don't want to see the movie, while I have interest in knowing the truth of the Moussad operation I have no interest in seeing a dramatized, factually errant "made up" account of it... I just what to know what Spielburg wanted me to take from it.
JsARCLIGHT Posted December 29, 2005 Posted December 29, 2005 It sounds corny, because it is... just remember I didnt make it up. But I just read somewhere that the whole meaning or as you would call it "propaganda" is that beneath all the atrocities during and after the incident, there's a cry for peace. I paraphrase because I've read other reviews since, but that's Spielbergs take on the whole incident. I would disagree with that point of view but like I said before, I'm not familiar with the incident, the groups or anything. But it's just the kind of thing that messes a movie up for me. It's what I would call "pussy film making". I'm sure A1 would agree. 355689[/snapback] I used the word propaganda because propaganda is something that makes you feel something about someone or something using slanted or incorrect logic. The whole truth is not known about the Moussad operation, anything Spielburg puts up on the screen is fiction outside of a handful of news blurbs that could be extrapolated into scenes. It's like someone making a movie about the American Phoenix Program in Vietnam... yes it exsisted, yes the CIA killed a lot of people both innocent and not, but any more than that is unknown to all but the government that holds the classified files. For someone to come out and make a movie called "Phoenix" supposedly telling the story of the Phoenix Program is bunk... it may have the shadow of truth behind it but it is someone's opinion piece designed to make the audience feel a certain way about the thing or event rather than present an honest, by the numbers impartial historical account. Very few honest historically accurate and truthful movies exsist depicting wars, covert operations and the like because to understand the whole dynamic in any sort of way that would honest to all sides is near impossible in a three hour theater format that the common man can digest. I'm not trying to badmouth Spielburg or sway people on this movie, I'm just trying to get people to see it for what it is: an op-ed piece with an agenda. What Spielburg's agenda is is unknown to me. Peace is a good agenda and I hope that's what he has in mind.
Noyhauser Posted December 29, 2005 Posted December 29, 2005 No that's exactly what he had in mind, its supposed to be a movie with an agenda, and that is to promote peace. And to be honest, I have never seen a war/historical movie that really did justice to an event, where I couldn't pick out the holes where history took a back seat to storytelling. I think the best that many can do is to maybe illuminate perspectives on issues. The Battle Of Algeris is a great film, not because its a perfect portrail of the history of The Algerian Civil War, but because its got some pretty deep scenes that offer clues about terrorism and peoples attitudes in trying times. The Cafe Bombing Scene is maybe one of the most startling cinematic pieces ever filmed. It made people look behind the veneer of the dehuminization of terrorists. Who did it, why did they do it? How could rational people carry out such violence. Thats what I think its good for at times. Some of the best war films aren't even based on real events. Bridge Over the River Quai was only loosely based on events, but it opened up a pandora's box worth of questions. In the end, I should say that I don't really go to movies to "get educated." I work in this field, and I have a very hard time watching any movie without immediately pulling it apart. Even documentaries piss me off. Furthermore movies (as a personal choice) are a bit of escapism for me. I tend not to go to movies in a search for my conscience, I'm there usually because I want to I want to see a guy getting hit in the nards with a football. I don't want to sound like an Ivory tower academic, but I think in a lot of cases Directors should focus more on basic storytelling, rather than delve into matters they may have a limited conception about, but hold strong personal convictions in any case.
JsARCLIGHT Posted December 29, 2005 Posted December 29, 2005 (edited) I also do not see movies to be educated but I cannot swallow movies that portray or profess to portray real world events. I can enjoy movies like Saving Private Ryan because it is fiction, fiction with the backdrop of history. The same can be said for Apocalypse Now and many other war movies. The only war movie I have ever seen that tried it's best to portray the events as accurately and historically truthful as possible was the rambling and painfully long "The Longest Day". I will wholly agree that movies are meant to entertain, but when a movie uses a real world event that is filled with such polarizing stigma as this people like me take a step back... at what point is entertainment writing history or re-writing history? I know blockheads that to this day think Saving Private Ryan was a real story... and they think the movie treatment of Pearl Harbor was about a true story (the two guys/love story thing). Movies affect people, and when you dabble with history... especially politically and emotionally charged history such as this, bad things can happen. Spielburg knew this and I think that is why he is handling this movie the way he is handling it (no press, no ads, limited openings). Edit: What I am trying to say is that I have no issue with anyone telling a morality story, or a peace story, or any other kind of story... in so long as they do not inject real world heated political footballs into it. The whole Moussad "revenge" strikes to this day are shrouded in mystery and fuel hate for the Israelis and Palestinans alike. If Spielburg wanted to just tell a story of peace between Arabs and Jews he could have made one of his typical, shmaltzy "Spielburgian" plays that he wrote every element of using made up characters that make people say "hmm, I'll think about that message" rather than dramatizing real events that few people know much of anything about. It's the "making up" of historical events that I'm having a problem with... because I know people will take this movie as gospel for what happened on that Moussad mission. Edited December 29, 2005 by JsARCLIGHT
Noyhauser Posted December 29, 2005 Posted December 29, 2005 (edited) Hmm, I've been thinking, maybe this isn't that bad. Yes he has taken some liberties, and its not the most accurate portrayal, but from what I've heard its not at all bad, and in many ways captures the theme in a way that hasn't been done before. Funny enough, if you think about it, its far easier to write, film and produce a documentary than it is to make a film on it. Reality is easier to handle than reality based movies. There are countless hundreds of documentaries done on Northern Ireland. But none of them engendered the controversy that the 2002 movie Bloody Sunday did. And if you see bloody sunday (or have seen it) its quite a good movie actually. It too suffers from historical inaccuracies, but its pretty faithful and even handed in its treatment. It allows people to engage with a subject that confronts their stereotypes. I get the feeling that this is what Munich attempts to do. I think in a lot of cases people are reluctant to let go of their stereotypes of their enemies, or situations they don't understand, and and the greatest reaction is illicited from these people when those views are challenged. I think thats whats needed here. If people can come to understand each other better, maybe thats a good thing, rather than looking at each other as absolute evils and operating under that assumptions. Downfall portayed Hitler, as a real, delusional man, not some ten headed mythical evil monster. Thats something that is very hard to grasp reading a book or watching him speak. I still don't know if it made him even more scary to me ( conversely when many people thought that humanizing him was a bad thing.) I think giving the film makers a bit of artistic leeway enabled them to do this, which was an excellent thing. Edited December 29, 2005 by Noyhauser
agr33 Posted December 29, 2005 Posted December 29, 2005 in my final analysis, i wonder if the events at munich aren't simply just a backdrop for what spielberg was really trying to show us. not only about the struggle of the Mussad or the cause of extremist; but human nature in general. why we find murder morally and socially acceptable in certain instances and not in others. at the very beginning of the film the primemister of Isrieal herself is trying to convice others of that paradigm in order to combat those responsible for munich. having recived my degree in both political science and military history, I know only to well the moral ambivolence that all countries are guilty of; particularly our own. many nations will climb into bed with anyone who suites the own political agenda. case in piont, when we were terrified of the Russian war machine. we very gladly sent C.I.A. "advisors" to train the afgans to combat the soviet union. Later those expertly trained afgans would join the call for Islamic Jihad.
Isamu Atreides 86 Posted December 29, 2005 Posted December 29, 2005 Question for those who have seen the movie, or to those who go and see the movie:The actual killing of the Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics is reported to not be shown in the movie, and that the movie only deals with the Moussad operation after the event. For those who see the movie, do you feel any more sympathy for the Israelis or for the Palestinians when the focus of the entire movie seems to be about the Israeli revenge and not the incident that spawned the revenge? It seems to me in order to properly balance this movie Spielburg needed to cover both events, the Munich terrorist attack and the Moussad retribution strikes in equal ground in order to show "both sides of the coin". Just hinting at the terrorism or showing snippets of it then putting all the focus on the followup actions is like only covering the fielding of a baseball hit by a bat and not showing the actual pitch and hit. Then again what is the intent of this movie? Is the intent to showcase the brutality of the follup "revenge" strikes? Is it to show how terrorists and the agents pursuing them are "alike"? I have heard every reason under the rainbow for Spielburg's choices that supposedly exsist in this movie... but my question is how is the viewer supposed to react? What are you supposed to feel and for whom? 355666[/snapback] They absolutely show the murder of the Israeli Athletes. one of the athletes is played by his real life son, who was 1 month old when those animals killed him. its never played all at once, but dispersed throughout the movie.
EXO Posted December 29, 2005 Author Posted December 29, 2005 Just came back... I didn't like it. I can go on why just to warn people that are teetering between seeing it and not seeing it. But since some people here seem to like the movie, I'll let the others form they're own opinion. All I can say is I wasted 3 hours. It's even more disappointing since I was so excited to see it.
JsARCLIGHT Posted December 29, 2005 Posted December 29, 2005 OK then, if the actual Munich Olympics killings are shown then you have the required archetype for a revenge movie. Everyone I have talked with who says they saw the movie told me the Munich killings were either not shown or only mentioned/shown briefly in passing and that the weight of the movie was focused on the time after the Olympics and the Moussad Op.
EXO Posted December 29, 2005 Author Posted December 29, 2005 OK then, if the actual Munich Olympics killings are shown then you have the required archetype for a revenge movie. Everyone I have talked with who says they saw the movie told me the Munich killings were either not shown or only mentioned/shown briefly in passing and that the weight of the movie was focused on the time after the Olympics and the Moussad Op. 355770[/snapback] MAJOR SPOILER: Not the way they showed it... you can't really say they showed the killings because it was thru Avner's (Eric Bana) take on what happened, not to mention it was spread out thru the film and they didn't show the end of the hostage crisis until the end of the film. I have to say that it was really long and boring film. Then they ruin it at the end by saying that the people targetted may not have been directly involved with the Munich incedent.
Recommended Posts